developing projects and partners to comprehensively treat ...mr. simons started his presentation by...

Developing Projects and Partners to Comprehensively Treat

Dairy Manure in the San Joaquin Valley

Forum Summary

January 11, 2006

Stanislaus County Agricultural Center

3800 Cornucopia Way, Modesto, CA 95358

Funding for this forum was made possible through a grant from the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Developing Projects and Partners to Comprehensively Treat Dairy Manure in the San Joaquin Valley

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

2. Welcome and Overview of the Forum...................................................................................1

3. Overview of Issues and Technologies....................................................................................2

4. Panel on Technological Approaches.....................................................................................5

An Overview of Current Anaerobic Digester Technologies...................................................................5

Biomethane from Dairy Waste....................................................................................................................8

Technologies for Treating Dairy Manure: Gasification .........................................................................9

5. Discussion on Applying Technologies................................................................................. 12

6. Panel On Funding Opportunities........................................................................................ 13

Farm Pilot Project Coordination Program............................................................................................ 13

Environmental Quality Incentives Program.......................................................................................... 14

Conservation Innovation Grants ............................................................................................................. 16

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program............................................................................ 17

7. Working Session For Pilot Projects .................................................................................... 18

8. Reports Back and Next Steps .............................................................................................. 19

How does everyone feel about what happened over the course of the day? ..................................... 21

What are the next steps for this group? ................................................................................................. 22

Appendix A: Agenda.............................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B: Algorithm for Selecting/Grouping Component Technologies into a

Comprehensive Treatment System (Simplistic)...................................................................... A-3

Appendix C: Discussion on Applying Technologies in the San Joaquin Valley: Pilot Project,

Needs and Technologies ........................................................................................................ A-5

Appendix D: Working Sessions to Develop Pilot Projects in the San Joaquin Valley for

Treating Dairy Manure: Pilot Project Gameplans................................................................. A-7

Appendix E: Forum Participants......................................................................................... A-15


1

1. Introduction

Over 60 representatives of local, state and federal agencies, elected officials, dairy industry

representatives, environmental groups, academics, and others participated in the forum,

Developing Projects and Partners to Comprehensively Treat Dairy Manure in the San Joaquin

Valley. Building on the Local Government Commission’s Waste to Watts meeting held in

October 2004, this one-day forum offered participants an opportunity to devise comprehensive

pilot projects for treating dairy manure in the San Joaquin Valley. The goal of this activity was to

brainstorm ideas to protect Valley air, water and soil, but still be financially viable for dairies.

During the forum, experts discussed the environmental issues and opportunities associated with

dairy manure, provided examples of treatment technologies, and outlined various grants and

loans available for financing pilot projects. Participants ended the day using the information

presented, and their own expertise, to develop potential pilot projects. They looked at the needs

of particular sites, the technologies that could best fit into a comprehensive approach, which

financing mechanisms would best fit, and developed the next steps for moving forward with pilot

projects. This document summarizes the day’s activities.

2. Welcome and Overview of the Forum

Cyane Dandridge, the forum facilitator, of Strategic Energy Innovations welcomed the

participants to the forum and briefed them on the expectations and rules for the day. She outlined

the desired outcomes of the forum, which were to:

1. learn about a variety of comprehensive approaches for turning dairy manure into an

opportunity, rather than a challenge;

2. learn about technology solutions that can be combined into a comprehensive approach for

treating dairy manure;

3. learn about financing resources and techniques for funding projects; and

4. begin the process to develop concrete projects in the Valley.

Participants were then provided the opportunity to introduce themselves.


2

3. Overview of Issues and Technologies

James Liebman, Biologist, US EPA, Region 9

The purpose of this session was to provide an overview of the environmental issues and

opportunities associated with dairy manure, and also look at the pros and cons of using different

types of technologies for treating dairy manure. Mr. Liebman highlighted the issues surrounding

dairy manure in California, dairy manure treatment technologies, and the results of the San

Joaquin Valley Dairy Manure Technology Feasibility Assessment Panel’s evaluation of dairy

manure management and treatment technologies.

Mr. Liebman started out by mentioning that California is the number one dairy state in the US,

so it is important to find solutions to the problems surrounding this issue because these issues

affect everyone. Also, while there are several concerns related to dairy manure, such as it effects

on air an water quality, he stressed that manure is a resource that can be turned into products

such as fertilizer, compost, soil amendments, bedding and energy. Dairies are facing lots of

litigation that is causing problems by creating bad feelings all around. In order to address the

issues and begin developing comprehensive solutions, Mr. Liebman said that several players

would need to be involved, such as dairymen, transportation providers, air and water quality

specialists, meteorologists, and others.

According to Mr. Liebman there are two major areas of environmental concern with regard to

dairy manure: 1) its effects on air and 2) its effects on water and soil. Certain compounds that

affect air quality are: 1) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), which lead to increased Ozone;

2) Ammonia (NH3), which leads to particulate matter (PM2.5); 3) Methane (CH4), which affects

global warming; and 4) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). Effects on water and soil include increased

nutrients, especially Nitrogen (N), excess salts, bacteria and organic matter that cause problems

when they leach into soils, rivers, streams, and groundwater.

Mr. Liebman stressed that there is a need for comprehensive solutions for treating dairy manure

due to the many different pollutants and the inability of any one technology to remedy all of

them. He then outlined the elements of an example comprehensive treatment plan that included


3

fermenting manure to create biogas that can be burned to generate gases to create electricity, or

purified and compressed to make fuel. Solids can be composted or used to generate electricity

through thermal conversion. Liquids can be used for fertilizer, and/or the salts can be removed

by reverse osmosis or precipitation, and the excess nitrogen can be removed through

nitrification/denitrification processes. Also refer to Appendix B, provided by Don Hodge of US

EPA, which includes an algorithm for grouping component technologies into a comprehensive

treatment system.

A point he brought up is that funding needs to be made available for pilot projects, such as the

programs already available for funding digester projects in California. Mr. Liebman suggested

three parties that are important for funding comprehensive approaches: 1) Technology providers

could supply equipment and staff for testing to evaluate the performance of their products. (2)

Public agencies/funders could assist with infrastructure and training, as well as fund

environmental monitoring and outreach. (3) Dairies could provide land and manure. However,

there may need to be regulatory changes to support these approaches.

Mr. Liebman then reported on the results of the San Joaquin Valley Dairy Manure Technology

Feasibility Assessment Panel’s report, “An Assessment of Technologies for Management and

Treatment of Dairy Manure in California’s San Joaquin Valley.” The panel was created to

evaluate technologies that have the potential to improve the management and treatment of dairy

manure in the San Joaquin Valley. Technologies evaluated by the panel were reviewed for their

environmental and economic performance based on information supplied by the vendors. Many

different types of technologies were submitted to the Panel during the evaluation process. The

types of technological approaches reviewed by the panel included:

• Feed management as a method of source reductions by reducing gas and waste output;

• Anaerobic digestion as a method for processing the carbon components of manure;

• Composting;

• Covers;

• Enzymes and microbes;

• Aerators and mixers;

• Thermal conversion (Gasification);


4

• Nitrification/Denitrification which converts Nitrogen to inert N2 gas; and

• Solid-Liquid separation.

Although they are possible, the panel did not review the following treatment approaches:

trapping nutrients in biomass, enclosing barns, and Nutrient Management Plans.

The panel concluded that:

• There was insufficient scientific data to determine the environmental and economic

benefits of most of the technologies they reviewed. Most companies were unable to

provide sufficient data to determine the environmental and economic performance of

their technology.

• Many of the technologies reviewed have never been tested on California dairies, or not

on dairies at all.

• Few of the technologies were a “whole-systems” approach, only dealing with a small

portion of the waste stream.

• Treating manure can be very expensive, especially for more complete treatment systems.

The panel also made the following recommendations:

• Standard test methods need to be developed to get a better understanding of the

technology packages available on the market, and to fairly evaluate and compare them.

• Applied research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of technologies, noting

especially that VOC emissions and salt accumulation issues need more research.

• Pilot projects are needed to assess the environmental and economic benefits of

technologies.

A full copy of the report can be found on the Air Resources Board’s website

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/dairypanel.htm).

Mr. Liebman concluded by saying that the goal of this forum was to develop comprehensive

approaches to treating dairy manure that produce a cleaner environment and are viable for


5

dairies. During this forum participants will identify where pilot projects can be started and which

technologies can be utilized.

Session Comments

• It is difficult to compare the effectiveness of technologies since they are so different.

• Need to look the “Mass Balance” of the approach, that is, how it affects all constituents.

• Current litigation is draining the resources of the industry, and is pushing dairymen out of

California.

• Should look at technology systems that turn waste into Hydrogen.

• There have been bad policy decisions made by political leaders.

4. Panel on Technological Approaches

This panel highlighted three technological approaches to treating dairy manure. Presentations

were given on 1) anaerobic digesters, 2) manure-to-fuels, and 3) gasification. The session was

not meant to suggest that these approaches are the best ones available, or only the ones

participants should consider for pilot projects.

An Overview of Current Anaerobic Digester Technologies

George Simons, Principal Research Consultant, ITRON

Mr. Simons started his presentation by stressing a few points for participants to remember.

Manure is a byproduct that must be managed because currently dairy wastes are both viewed as

valuable resources and as environmental headaches. It is also critical to remember that the

primary mission of a dairy is to produce dairy goods. Manure management and any associated

energy processes should complement and support that mission — not supplant or distract from it.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a method that converts manure into gas and benign solids by the use

of microbes. The byproducts of AD technologies include digested solids, captured biogas, and

recovered effluent. Mr Simons focused on four types of AD systems during his presentation:


6

1) covered lagoons, 2) compete mix digesters, 3) plug flow digesters, and 4) fixed film reactors.

These four types of systems focus on digestion reactions and energy conversion systems.

The first system he discussed was covered lagoons, which are common in California because

they fit in well with existing uses of storage ponds, and typically do not need to be heated

because of the warmer climate. These systems are comprised of a solids separator and usually

two lagoons a floating lagoon cover and a biogas utilization system. Mr. Simons feels that

lagoons offer several advantages over other technologies because they usually cost lower than

other systems, are easier to install, and are relatively “low tech” systems compared to other

technologies. However, disadvantages of this type of system include the requirement of a

significant amount of land to hold this system, and nutrients and solids tend to accumulate in the

bottom of lagoons.

Complete mix digesters are another AD system and are similar in design to sewage treatment

plants, consisting of a mix tank, a digester tank with mixing, heating and biogas recovery

subsystems, a biogas utilization system and an effluent storage system. The advantages to this

type of system are the availability of experienced technicians to work on these systems, and that

it operates on a wide range of solids concentration. However, he noted that this type of system

does require a mechanical system for mixing the waste and typically can only retain solids for

10-20 days.

The third system Mr. Simons discussed were plug flow digesters, which are used for thick,

viscous solids from ruminants. These systems are comprised of a mix tank, a digester with a heat

exchanger and biogas recovery system, or effluent storage system, and a biogas utilization

system. Plug flow digesters have a good track record with dairy manure, work well with scrape

systems, and produces good quality solids, although only solids greater than 10% work in these

systems and they are susceptible to contaminants.

Fixed film reactors were the final system he discussed. This system employs a high-rate

anaerobic digestion approach for diluted feed stocks comprised of a solids separator, sludge and

recycle pumps, a digester system, and a biogas utilization system. This system works well with


7

very dilute streams and has a reduced Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) of less than 10 days.

Fixed film reactors are unable to handle medium to high solid feed stocks, require solid

separation, and are susceptible to plugging problems.

Mr. Simons pointed out that there are a wide range of costs involved with these types of systems

depending on things such as the capital cost of the reactors and energy conversion systems, as

well as overhead and management costs. When considering implementing one of these systems,

he suggested looking at the costs from a number of perspectives including on a per cow basis.

Profitability is also dependent on the price paid for the generated electricity. However, if sized

appropriately for offsetting the electricity needs of the dairy, these systems could repay the

capital investment within six years under current retail rates. For centralized biogas systems, a

major consideration is the cost of transporting manure from dairies to the biogas system. In

these situations, centralized systems are usually more profitable for closely clustered dairies.

Mr. Simons discussed the impacts of these systems on air quality:

• There is a significant reduction in odors and local vectors.

• They are generally good at capturing methane and other VOCs.

• There appears to be a net reduction when taking into consideration CO2 from biogas

combustion.

• NOX emissions are still an issue. While IC engines tend to have higher NOx emissions

than microturbines or fuel cells, the latter lack a track record with dairy biogas

applications.

Impacts on water quality:

• There is a substantial reduction of the measured Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in

effluent.

• There is over 99% reduction in fecal coliform, and 90% reduction in fecal streptococcus.

• There appears to be little impact on nutrient loading.

Mr. Simons concluded his presentation by noting that dairies in California are undergoing

changes due to economic, environmental and societal pressures. AD technologies exist that can


8

help solve many issues confronting the dairy industry, however, conflicting policies and

regulations act to delay forward movement in the dairy industry. There should be state funding to

ensure that any AD, or other technological approach must complement the dairy industry’s

primary mission of making dairy products and not harm it.

Biomethane from Dairy Waste

Ken Krich, Assistant Director, California Institute for Energy and Environment

Biomethane is a renewable natural gas made from biogas, where hydrogen sulfide, water vapor,

and carbon dioxide are removed. Biomethane can be used for transportation, heating, cooling,

and power generation. There are various technologies already available to perform this upgrade

of biogas. However, the biggest problem is cost effectiveness and reliability at small-scale

dairies. Mr. Krich noted that biomethane is becoming more cost competitive as natural gas prices

rise. There are also added costs for the storage and distribution of biomethane.

Mr. Krich mentioned the environmental effects associated with creating biomethane:

• It reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

• There is a reduction in odors from the dairy.

• If the digester is heated, pathogens and weed seeds are controlled.

• Water quality is improved by the lowering of BODs.

• There is some VOC reduction.

• Combustion of biogas or biomethane generates NOX, but NOx is easier to control for

biomethane than biogas.

For any project involving biomethane, Mr. Krich suggested to: 1) identify the source of biogas to

be used; 2) identify a buyer of the biomethane; 3) build a biomethane upgrade plant; and 4) find

a transportation method for getting biomethane to the buyer.

Mr. Krich estimated that the technical methane potential from dairy waste is 14 billion ft3/year

— enough to fuel 250,000 cars. Dairies produce more biomethane than they can use, so they can

sell it for other uses. However, non-farm vehicles will most likely not come to a farm to refuel,


9

so the biomethane needs to be moved off-farm to buyers. Also, most dairies are not on a pipeline

grid, and there are often institutional barriers, such as quality of control issues with utilities, that

limit access to existing pipeline grids.

Although there is support for ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable electricity, there is currently little

support for biomethane in the state. California’s electricity market limits the financial

opportunities available to dairies. In addition, there are no financial or regulatory incentives for

controlling greenhouse gas emissions to support biomethane. Although biomethane is

competitive with current high natural gas prices, there is still a high volatility in prices that must

be considered. The costs of distribution will also need to be considered for any potential project.

According to Mr. Krich there is an opportunity for using dairy manure as a fuel in the Central

Valley. Many Central Valley industrial natural gas customers are near large concentrations of

dairies, so the gas could move though private pipelines to these customers. Currently, liquefied

natural gas has to be trucked in from out of state, and gas from a local biomethane plant could

save truck mileage by replacing or augmenting compressed natural gas (CNG). Modesto, Tulare,

Hanford and Visalia could act as transit hubs for vehicles fueled with compressed biomethane

since they are in close proximity to many dairies, and have existing CNG fueling stations.

Technologies for Treating Dairy Manure: Gasification

Bryan Jenkins, Executive Director, California Biomass Collaborative and Professor,

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, UC Davis

Gasification is a conversion of solids or liquids to fuel or synthesis gases through gas forming

reactions. Professor Jenkins described three types of gasification by their reactor types: 1)

fixed/moving beds, 2) fluidized beds, and 3) entrained beds. These gas-forming reactions require

oxidants and other reactants.

According to Professor Jenkins, gasification offers several benefits:

• It produces fuel gas for more versatile applications in power generation and chemical

synthesis.


10

• There is a potential for a higher efficiency conversion than conventional steam cycle

power systems.

• Typically, lower temperatures are created than with direct combustion, decreasing the

potential for alkali volatilization, fouling, slagging, and bed agglomeration. It can also

reduce heavy metal volatilization.

• There is a lower volume of gas requiring treatment to reduce NOX and SOX emissions

compared to combustion flues gas.

• Fuel nitrogen evolved principally as NH3, and sulfur as H2S, are more readily removed

than NOX and SO2 in combustion systems.

• Compared to combustion systems, gasifiers can be applied at smaller scales for power

generation, although gas cleaning is still a primary concern and expense.

He also identified several constraints to gasification:

• The gas produced needs to be cleaned before it can be used as a fuel gas in engines,

turbines, and fuel cells.

• Many gasification processes produces a carbonaceous solid (char).

• Individual systems are limited in scale, so multi-reactor systems are needed for large

power or refinery systems.

• Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems using pressurized

reactors need pressure-feeding systems.

• Moisture content is limited (typically < 30% although updraft units can range up to 50%

wet basis) so it requires feedstock drying for wet manure solids.

• Particle size distribution is important for proper fuel handling and material flow.

Professor Jenkins noted that there are few gasifiers in operation for biomass, especially in the

U.S. However, there is substantial interest in the development of gasification systems for

biomass and the conversion of separated municipal solid waste organics.


11

Panel Questions and Answers

Q: Why do companies have so many difficulties?

A: Gas cleaning is a primary hurdle. Feedstock properties and preparation are also critical to

the system operation.

Q: Is there a temperature threshold between gasification and incineration?

A: There is no specific temperature limit separating one regime from another. The two

processes are distinguished primarily by the reaction stoichiometry and products, with

gasifiers producing an intermediate fuel gas that can then be burned, or reacted for further

chemical processing, such as to make hydrogen for fuel cells.

Q: Which is better, gasification or incineration?

A: Gasification is not yet a commercial technology for biomass feedstocks in the US and

needs further demonstration. Incineration is a commercial process but suffers from

substantial public operation. However, environmental performance has markedly

improved in the last few decades and incinerators are widely deployed.

Q: How technologically sophisticated are gasification systems? Will dairies be able to run them?

A: Specialized staff will likely be needed to operate these systems. A gasification program in

the Philippines during the late 1970s and early 1980s failed partly because of a lack of

trained staff. Gasifiers can also expose workers to hazardous conditions if not well

designed, including exposure to carbon monoxide (CO).

Q: Can natural gas systems be implemented at the dairy level?

A: It could be done at dairies with 1500-2000 cows, but a centralized processing a plant

would be better.

A: Third party providers are probably better. The Inland Empire Utility Agency had a model

working for wastewater treatment.


12

Q: The European economy is different from ours. Will technologies from over there work here in

the U.S.?

A: ITRON did a cost/benefit analysis on renewable energy. Biogas has a 2:1 cost-to-benefit

ratio over most other renewables. There are also societal benefits to implementing these

types of systems.

A: It is suggested that we move to a European-type system. Dairymen should get an

economic benefit for implementing technologies that benefit all of society.

A: Biogas is comparable in price to natural gas, and most biofuels can be produced at below

$3 per gallon. The U.S. is already very competitive with Europe in many ways.

5. Discussion on Applying Technologies

Participants were broken out into small groups to discuss the technologies covered during both

morning sessions and to begin identifying potential pilot projects. Participants were asked to

discuss the needs of a treatment project — clean air, clean water, nutrient management, selling

byproducts — and the technologies that could serve those needs. Group notes on their discussion

can be found in Appendix C. After the group discussion, participants shared what came out of

their discussions.

Session Comments

• There are financing issues that need to be addressed.

• Look into whether manure can be mixed with industrial waste streams to obtain a higher

efficiency in treatment. If done, will be there issues when the industrial waste is added

and who would regulate this?

• Need to know what fractions manure comes in, and which fractions technologies can

address. Different technologies may need to be employed for each fraction.

• Look at Flush dairies.

• Keeping dairy producers alive economically is a primary need.

• Look at the sophistication of producers and their ability to utilize technologies. We need

to look at what an average producer can implement.


13

• Need to clearly establish air and water regulatory requirements for dairies. Identify what

it will take for an average dairy to comply with these requirements.

• There are two ways to approach regulatory needs and policy (what needs to be done for

the project to work)

• Look into using a Central Facility for treating manure, such as for creating biomethane.

There will be transportation issues to address in this approach, such as comparing the cost

of transporting manure versus the price of the gas produced.

• Government funding is needed for these projects.

• Projects should start with a focus on dairymen’s current issues, such as lot of rows, and

little land. Any project will also need to meet his objectives.

• Look at feed management.

• Look at a centralized, co-op approach — with big clusters first. With this approach,

enough revenue will need to be captured to help the dairy owners. There may be some

stranded owners with this approach.

• Produce a mapping of potential income streams to fund projects.

• Start a renewable fuels industry in California.

6. Panel On Funding Opportunities

This panel provided examples of different financing opportunities that can be used to fund dairy

manure treatment projects. However, this is not an exhaustive list of the opportunities available.

Farm Pilot Project Coordination Program

Bob Monley, General Manager, Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. (FPPC)

Mr. Monley talked about FPPC’s Farm Pilot Program, which provides funding innovative

technology that will reduce the nutrient content of the waste stream from animal feeding

operations. FPPC funds pilot project demonstrations and is interested in testing the effectiveness

of the technology, collecting data, demonstrating economic viability and finding value-added

products derived form the animal waste. The FPPC program emphasizes “credible”

demonstrations of technology at farm-scale at dairy, poultry and swine operations. Proposals


14

with collaborative efforts that showcase multiple stakeholders, multi-level endorsements and

combined funding (ie. state/federal/local, regulatory endorsements, trade association

participation, appropriate teaming with more than one technology provider and involvement of

the community) will be judged more favorably than those that do not.

Aspects of the Program:

• Funds are appropriated by Congress and overseen by the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS).

• $17.2 million in funds are available through FY 2009.

• To date, FPPC has committed $7.2 million to pilot projects.

• 13 projects have already been funded.

• 5 final reports have been issued on completed pilot projects.

• The next RFP will be issued around June of 2006. Each proposed project is graded

against the published requirements described in the RFP (request for proposal). Graded

proposals are then ranked and the highest scored proposals are recommended for funding

to the Board of Directors.

• More information can be found on-line at: http://www.fppcinc.org.

Contact:

Lauren Seigel

Operations Associate

Phone: (800) 829-8212; (813) 222-8200

Fax: (813) 221-8811

E-mail: [email protected]

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Dan Johnson, State Water Management Engineer, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mr. Johnson discussed NRCS’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which is part

of the 2002 Federal Farm Bill. This grant program offers farmers and ranchers financial aid and

technical assistance to install or implement structural and management practices on agricultural


15

land, to support their goal of promoting environmental quality while supporting agricultural

production.


• The 2002 Farm Bill and the grant program sunsets in FY 2007. Continuation of EQIP in

the next Farm Bill is likely.

• $10 million was allocated to California livestock producer manure practices for FY 2006.

• Most producers are eligible and can apply for a grant with a cap of $450,000 for an

individual producer.

• The program will fund 50% of the practice cost.

• Technologies must meet NRCS’s current practice standards to be eligible, because they

want to ensure that proposals are viable and can be completed. However, Mr. Johnson

noted that NRCS is looking into new technologies this year.

• More information about the program can be found at:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/PROGRAMS/EQIP/

Contacts:

Dan Johnson

NRCS State Water Management Engineer

Phone: (530) 792-5625


Mark Parson

Program Specialist

Phone: (530) 792-5660



16

Conservation Innovation Grants

Bill Boyd, Manure Management Team Leader, Natural Resources Conservation Service

As part of EQIP, Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) are grants intended to stimulate the

development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies while

leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection, in conjunction with

agricultural production. These funds are used to award competitive grants to non-Federal

governmental or non-governmental organizations, tribes, or individuals. CIG enables NRCS to

work with other public and private entities to accelerate technology transfer and adoption of

promising technologies and approaches to address some of the Nation's most pressing natural

resource concerns. CIG will benefit agricultural producers by providing more options for

environmental enhancement and compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations.


• There are two levels to the program: State and Federal. Grants are separated like this

because some issues are more appropriate at the State level, and not the Federal.

• There are four components to the grant: 1) Natural Resources Concerns, 2) Chesapeake

Bay Watershed, 3) Technology Component, and 4) Wildlife Habitat.

• The CA FY06 CIG grant program allocation is $375,000. Maximum award amount

allowed is $75,000 per grant.

• A non-federal match of 50% is required, of which 25% can be in-kind.

• Only one- to three-year projects are funded.

• More information can be found on-line at: http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CIG/

Contact:

Alan Forkey

CIG Program Manager

430 G St #4164, Davis, CA 95616

(530) 792-5653

[email protected]


17

Mark Parson

CIG Program Specialist

430 G St #4164, Davis, CA 95616

Phone: (530) 792-5660


Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program

Larry Strong, Business & Cooperative Program Director, USDA Rural Development

Mr. Strong discussed various grant and loan programs offered by USDA Rural Development.

Aspects of the Programs:

• Approximately $19 million is available in grants and loans.

• More information is available on-line at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ or

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/CA/bi/index.htm

USDA Rural Development programs include:

• Renewable Energy Systems Loan: Loans to rural small businesses and agricultural

producers for installing or improving renewable energy systems. Anaerobic digester

projects have been funded in the past using these loans.

• Energy Efficiency Improvements Loan: Loans to rural small business and agricultural

producers for energy efficiency improvements. So far, these loans have not been applied

to dairies.

• Value-Added Producer Grants: Funding for the marketing of value-added products,

such as cheese. This grant could be used for marketing byproducts from manure

treatment.

Contacts:

Karen Firestein

Business and Cooperative Specialist

Phone: (530) 792-5829

Email: [email protected]


18

Session Comments:

• U.S. EPA Regions 9 and 10 will be releasing an RFP as part of the Diesel Reduction

Collaborative for funding projects using biomethane to offset biodiesel. There is about $3

million available with about $500,000 marked for agriculture.

• Congress people are looking to increase funding for these types of technologies.

• The California Energy Commission has funding for projects that focus on innovative

technologies through their Public Interest Energy Research (PIER). There is about $62

million per year available for technologies that produce natural gas.

• The Governor’s Office is looking for proposals on funding needs.

• California needs more funding to start a renewable fuels industry in the state, but trying

to start a new industry is difficult.

• It was suggested that someone should create a mapping of potential funding sources for

these types of projects.

7. Working Session For Pilot Projects

Participants reformed into groups to develop plans for pilot projects in particular areas of the San

Joaquin Valley. This session built on what participants learned during the previous sessions.

Each group was asked to 1) identify a project, 2) the objectives for the project, 3) the project

stages, 4) the tasks for each stage, 5) the people involved, 6) any driving goals for the project,

and 7) any needs or challenges facing the project. Summaries of the pilot projects developed

during this working session are presented in the next session, Reports Back and Next Steps.


19

8. Reports Back and Next Steps

Each group reported back on the pilot projects they developed. There was a wide range of

potential projects — from generalized plans to more detailed projects. Each group’s notes for

their pilot project gameplan are provided in detail in Appendix D.

Group 1:

They felt that the current data gaps are important, so the initial phase would be to conduct a

feasibility study looking at the costs and benefits of technologies. Their initial goal would be to

create a “treatment train” of combinations of technologies to comprehensively treat manure.

More research will be needed to get more information for the “treatment train.” Then move on to

an initial cut of technologies, and looking for sites.

Group 2:

Assuming that another group would propose a central collection point to collect biogas and

utilize it, Group 2 wanted to look forward to an evaluation of a system that achieves

nitrificaiton/denitrification. During this project, the top three solutions for centralized processing

would be evaluated. They felt that infrastructure investments in biomethane made now would be

useful in the long-term as we move to more robust solutions.

Group 3:

The Turlock Irrigation District (TID) has expressed an interest in renewable energy, but TID

does not want to be the one generating it, or managing it — they just want to buy it. So this

group proposed developing a centralized renewable energy project in the Hilmar/Turlock areas

with help from the TID. There are about 350 diaries in this area, accumulating a lot of excess

Nitrogen and salts. While larger dairies can handle their excess Nitrogen problems, they

proposed a regional manure collection point for smaller dairies that can’t do on-site processing.


20

They noted that permitting is a huge issue at all levels of government, so there would need to be

a liability waiver. People don’t really want to get into this issue though.

Group 4:

Group 4 developed a project to do a “reality check” and see how people can build on the existing

infrastructure of relatively “low-tech” technologies, and improve them. The project looks at flush

versus scrape dairies — basically looking at liquids versus solids. Incentives would be provided

to empower manure solids haulers to look for value-added products. They could market dry

solids as better enrichment products for farming. The project would also try to make it easier to

export liquids to neighboring farms. The group noted that food safety is a key issue with these

products, so they would work with farmers to make sure there are no problems. Utilities and

other commercial providers would also need to be involved in the project. “Bread and butter”

solutions would be the focus of this project so that there can be a wider implementation of the

solutions.

Group 5:

This group didn’t come up with a master gameplan, but rather discussed topics surrounding solid

separation. They discussed ways to remove most of the solids and quantify the efficiency of that

separation, and also evaluated different management strategies. Drying methods that could be

implemented included the use of solar drying and biodrying. Their discussion also focused on

some of the uses for the dry solids, such as for gasification or thermal combustions and anaerobic

digestions.

Group 6:

This group’s gameplan focused on developing a regional treatment facility, possibly in Kings

County. The facility would have a system to generate power from manure and excess waste from

food processors and canneries. It would also have a system to create and sell biomethane for

transportation and hauling uses. Project goals would be to: improve air quality by creating


21

biomethane; to produce more renewable energy, which KRCD has an interest in buying; to

capture and reduce nutrients in a value-added way; to solve salt accumulation problems; and to

have a wise, planned use of land in the area. They realized that there needs to be cost/benefit and

efficiency analyses conducted for this type of facility.

Group 7:

The final group presented a plan to develop a pilot project to test the applicability of “Hollow

Fiber” bioreactors for Nitrogen and pathogen reduction in waste streams. The first stage would

be to work with NRCS and conservation districts to identify partners that could help identify

sites for the pilot test. Then a site could be found and the infrastructure needs of the pilot

assessed. The next step would be to begin testing and evaluating the system — testing the water

before and after slurring — with the help of academia, dairy associations, the NRCS and others.

The project would be completed with reports providing system monitoring results, engineering

specifications and an evaluation of the dairy components that can be used.

Closing Comments:

To conclude the day, participants were asked for their thoughts about the day’s activities and

what next steps are needed to begin implementing the pilot projects developed during the forum.

How does everyone feel about what happened over the course of the day?

• Optimistic.

• Started to hear groups repeating some of the same things about needing to combine

technologies. It started to sound like there was a consensus among the participants.

• Encouraged by the constructive ideas from people to make positive steps in moving

forward with the process

• Keep projects simple for small dairies. Even though comprehensive approaches were

discussed, there is going to have to be more than one type of development. It would be

good to implement technologies that can be packaged for small dairies.


22

• Need to consider how what we are doing today addresses the regulatory “clock.” The

best available control technologies don’t get us to where we want to go, because there is a

limited knowledge of emissions, volumes, and sources. As a result, dairies may be asked

to implement technologies that don’t address the issues they need to and then resources

may be spent before it is realized that we may need to re-direct those resources. The

group should advocate for the use of management-based control measures to create

harmony. This industry is still new to regulator such as the Air Board which is used to

smokestack industries.

What are the next steps for this group?

• Need to get commitments from people to implement some of the ideas from today, nit

just go home and forget.

• There needs to be a state policy on renewable energy. The state needs to make a stronger

commitment to biomass and renewable energy, and what will make it work is a market.

• Don’t implement new rules or regulations until we know new systems can work. Cheap,

“low tech” solutions are a place to start.

• We as group should consider supporting and advocating for the best gasification

technologies. Several are being proposed to Farm Pilot Project Inc. Is there a way to track

which proposals were submitted for money? Can we conference with funders to help

projects — demonstrating collaboration on the ones we support? This group could

identify which technologies are the most promising using academia to conduct technical

evaluations. It was mentioned by Mr. Boyd that during FPPC’s technical review of

proposals they could get back to this group for additional input. There could also be a

role for this group in soliciting proposals.

• Key policy changes need to be made, such as better laws on net metering, to make this

more attractive. We should demand better legislation that helps drive these technologies.

Projects need to be financially feasible, and there should be more rewards and fewer

penalties for dairies.

• There should be more discussion on the interface between technologies and regulations.

• The hard part is going to the legislature, but that is where a big difference can be made.


23

• This group should send out a request for people to come up with two or three projects,

and then do them, because something more concrete should come out of this process. The

California Biomass Collaborative could send out an e-mail to its members asking for

projects that test technologies.

• We are at a point where we are good at describing the problems, but are having a harder

time finding solutions because the issues are big and complicated. We hear that people do

want some leadership on the issue, but we just need to keep “stirring the pot,” and

working together to get to the solution. There are “off-the-shelf” available now, but they

aren’t adequately coupled together.


A-1

Appendix A

Agenda

8:30am: Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00am: Welcome and Overview of the Forum

• Cyane Dandridge, Executive Director, Strategic Energy Innovations (Workshop

Facilitator)

Technologies for Treating Dairy Manure

9:30am: Overview of Issues and Technologies

• James Liebman, Biologist, US EPA, Region 9

10:00am: Break 10:15am: Panel on Technological Approaches

• Moderator: James Liebman, US EPA, Region 9 • Digesters – George Simons, Principal Research Consultant, ITRON • Manure-to-Fuels – Ken Krich, Assistant Director, California Institute for Energy

and Environment • Gasification – Bryan Jenkins, Executive Director, California Biomass

Collaborative, Professor, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, UC Davis

11:30am: Discussion on Applying Technologies in the San Joaquin Valley 12:00pm: Lunch

Financing Dairy Manure Treatment

1:00pm: Panel on Funding Opportunities

• Moderator: Cyane Dandridge, Strategic Energy Innovations • Farm Pilot Project Coordination Program – Bob Monley, General Manager, Farm

Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. • Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) – Dan Johnson, Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) — Bill Boyd, Natural Resources

Conservation Service • Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program – Larry Strong, Business &

Cooperative Program Director, USDA Rural Development

2:00pm: Break


A-2

Pilot Projects for Treating Dairy Manure

2:15pm: Working Sessions to Develop Pilot Projects in the San Joaquin Valley for

Treating Dairy Manure

3:15pm: Reports Back on Working Sessions 4:00pm Adjourn


A-3

Appendix B

Algorithm for Selecting/Grouping Component Technologies into a Comprehensive Treatment System (Simplistic)

!

Costtotal system = It + Pt ±Ot ± Et( )n

t=1

"

O= On

n

n=1

" , E= Enn

n=1

"


A-4

S1 T1 T2

I1 I2

P1 P2

O1 O2

E1 E2

S2 T1 T2 T3

I1 I2 I3

P1 P2 P3

O1 O2 O3

E1 E2 E3

• Look for treatment train with least total cost • Limits (until…)

o Environmental standards are met o No effluent can function as (economically) input to another process

• Issues o Establishing values (costs) for variables

! Especially for air/water contaminants o Allocation of costs (including to public as subsidy policy)


A-5

Appendix C

Discussion on Applying Technologies in the San Joaquin Valley: Pilot Project, Needs and Technologies

Group A

Needs

• Flush dairy—excess nitrogen and salts • Energy generation • Runoff control/adequate Storage • Sludge de-watering

Group B

Needs

• Groundwater quality protection

o Technologies

! Lagoon monitoring pilot • Collective management of biogas

o Technologies

! Regional biogas collection to a central biomethane clean-up facility • NRCS cost-share dollars for aerators/circulators

o Technologies

! Data collection Group C

Needs

• Stay in business • Compliance with adapted requirements

o Air o Water

• Based on an average dairy


A-6

Group D

Needs

• Liquids

o Technologies

! Anaerobic digestion ! Aeration/denitrification ! Precipitation ! Membrane separation ! Evaporation

• Separating solids o Technologies

! Composting ! Gasification/thermal conversion ! Products-Fiber

• Dry/corral scrapings o Technologies

! Gasification ! Composting

• Pond sludge o Technologies

! Digestion ! Composting

• Quantification of (or lack of) environmental benefits associated with technologies Group E

Needs

• Air quality, VOC, PN, etc…

o Technologies

! Feed management study (commodity feeds) • Ground water contamination: Nitrates, salts, etc…. • GHG • Nuisances: odor, flies • Mortalities: food safety, security • Soil and crops • Energy fuels


A-7

Appendix D

Working Sessions to Develop Pilot Projects in the San Joaquin Valley for Treating Dairy Manure: Pilot Project Gameplans

Gameplan: Group 1

Dan Hodge, Mike Steele

Feasibility Study

Stage 1- Planning and Preparation

• Tasks

o Apply for grant funding o Hire economist o Identify all potential technologies including DUTAFS additions o Identify inputs, outputs, byproducts, and costs o Combine technologies into treatment systems (on paper) o Compare total system costs and environmental effectiveness o Pilot test technologies as necessary for step 2 o Select treatment trains for pilot systems

• People

o Dairy Manure Collaborative o Economist/consultant


A-8

Design/Construct

Stage 2- Implementation

• Tasks

o Solicit dairy farmers (WUD) willing to house pilot project o Establish relationships with utilities for energy policy input (gas, transportation,

electric power production payment) o Design and site comprehensive pilot system(s) o Construct o Evaluate

Driving Goals

• Fill data gaps in technology assessment • Evaluate treatment trains for cost-effectiveness

• Test technologies for economic and environmental performance

• Design/build comprehensive pilot system

Needs/Challenges

• Availability of performance data on technologies • Funding

Gameplan: Group 2

Stage 1

• Tasks

o Initial evaluation of competing systems that achieve nitrification/denitrification. • People

o 3-4 vendors submit proposals — cost-share, etc. ! BION ! Biomethane ! Shorean Firm ! Hydrogen ! On Site Power ! Hydrogen ! Intellergy

Stage 2

• Tasks

o Location of appropriate dairies to participate • People

o California Dairy Associations o Individual dairy operations

Other Tasks

• Developing biomethane transportation pilot project • Organize dairy industry/government trip to Sweden and South Korea

• Clear understanding of barriers, if any, to putting biomethane into utility Natural Gas pipelines (John Boesel)


A-9

Driving Goals

• Link near term requirements for biomethane-based waste management systems to the longer-term evaluation of systems that achieve nitrification/denitrification.

• Control and provide more comprehensive solutions to air and water quality protection.

Gameplan: Group 3

Stage 1: Project Development

• Tasks

o Evaluate what is being done in other areas ! LA DWP ! IEUA ! SMUD

o Evaluate technologies, flow capacity, and market o Gasification versus Digestion

! What centralized treatment technology is appropriate? AND Who will evaluate this?

• People

o Ag Community (for ash use) o Dairy Producers o EPA/USDA/NRCS o State/Regional/Local Regulators o Producer Organizations o Consultants o Testing Facilities o Technology Providers o Food Processors o RCD o Municipalities: Waste Treatment System

Project: Renewable Energy in the Turlock Irrigation District Area

Gameplan: Group 4

Liquids

Stage 1

• Tasks

o Off-farm options o Neighbor versus transportation o Pretreatment questions: Digestion? o Research and design

Stage 2

• Tasks

o Demo (Food safety?) o Example: Community or commercial digester


A-10

• People

o Utility? o Commercial operation? o Dairy organization o End user

Other Tasks

• Funding

Solids

Stage 1

• Tasks- Solids

o Off-farm options o Neighbor versus transportation o Pretreatment questions: Composting? o Research and design

Stage 2

• Tasks- Solids

o Marketing Example: On-farm or off-farm composting

• People- Solids

o Manure hauler o Commercial composters: Regional issue o Dairy organization o End users

Other Tasks

• Funding End Result for Both Liquids and Solids

• Offset commercial nutrient export • Soil conditioning

Driving Goals Barriers

• Salt • Commercial needs

• Transportation

• Financial issues

• Myths

Gameplan: Group 5

Stage 1

• Tasks

o Separation ! Quantify separation efficiency


A-11

! Innovative separation technology and scrape system o Drying Methods

! Mechanical ! Harrowing/solar ! Biodrying

• People

o Matt Beene, Fresno St.

Stage 2

• Tasks o Uses

! Bedding ! Fertilizer ! Gasification/thermal conversion ! Anaerobic digestion

Gameplan: Group 6

John Menke, Michael Marsh, Melissa Hunter, Kerry Drake, Ken Krich, Robert Monley, George

Simons

Stage 1: Research and Business Plan

• Tasks

o Develop goals and talking points to see the big picture o Common language for all disciplines involved o Create synergy o Solve multiple problems with project o Build coalition and sponsors

• People

o Multi-disciplinary alliance (diversity) ! Established leaders ! Influencers ! Regulators ! Technology providers ! Dairymen ! Environmentalists ! Economists ! Political leaders

Stage 2: Pilot Project

• Tasks o Get industrial permit for treating dairy and food processing waste (high CH4

potential) o Study costs of transportation/hauling o Slurry (dry scrape) vs. liquid o Credits?

! Diesel replacement ! Greenhouse gas credit


A-12

o Need for new policies ! Supportive of this program ! Phobia of large dairies ! Public money can be part of funding strategy ! State support needed for renewable energy policy for anaerobic digesters ! Need a market for biomethane

Pilot Project

• Regional treatment facility • Power generation from manure, food processing and cannery waste • Biomethane for transportation • Site in Tulare County?

Driving Goals

• Improve air quality o Manure (air emissions) collected in container and sent to central treatment center o Needs/Challenges

! VOCs from burping ! Feed ! Look into a closed facility with air conditioning (use energy generated to

power A/C) • More renewable energy

o Clean biogas to get biomethane o Use biogas to generate electricity o Sell fuel for vehicles o Sell to KRCD for Community Choice Program o Use bio-gas to run generator to power RO unit (reverse osmosis)

• Capture and reduce nutrients in a value-added way o Co-digest other agricultural waste (food processing and cannery waste) o Create concentrated P and NH3 to sell to growers as fertilizer

• Solve salt accumulation problem o Use waste heat to dry brine (treat waste) o Use bio-gas to run generator to power RO unit (reverse osmosis)

• Wise/planned use of land

Gameplan: Group 7

Stage 1: Planning and Coordination

• Tasks

o Work with NRCS and RCD to develop partners and a dairy site for pilot test o Identify site specific needs to prep the dairy for the pilot test o Install P.T. infrastructure needs: Electrical, piping, etc. o Document all aspects of the project

• People

o NRCS o RCD o Partners


A-13

o Dairyman o Contractor o Power Company o University

! CSU-F ! ASU

o Vendor ! APT ! GTI

Stage 2: In-Field Pilot Tests

• Tasks

o Pretest-Testing o Initiation of test o Monitoring o Evaluation o Modification of system

• People

o CSU-F o ASU o APT o GTI o NRCS o RCD o Dairyman

Other Tasks

• Interim reports providing system monitoring results, modification, etc. • Final report providing engineering specs for full dairy build out. • Report to include evaluation of dairy components that can be used in the full design.

o Hydrogen, energy, etc., that may be used as part of the engineering design and reduce overhead and management costs.


A-14

Objectives

• In-field pilot test of a proven bench scale method of reducing NO3 and pathogens. • To obtain engineering specification to determine how to build to full dairy needs. • It’s cost/infrastructure needs.

Pilot Project

• Test feasibility of economic and technical applicability of a “Hollow Fiber” bio-reactor for Nitrate and pathogen reduction in dairy waste water stream.


A-15

Appendix E

Forum Participants

Kevin Abernathy Executive Director California Dairy Campaign Ph: 209-678-0666 [email protected]

Ladi Asgill Project Manager Sustainable Conservation Ph: 209-576-7729 [email protected]

Rowe Barney Milk & Dairy Manager/Inspector Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources Ph: 209-525-6700 [email protected]

Matt Beene Research Assistant FSU Ph: 559-284-3692 [email protected]

John Boesel President & CEO CALSTART Ph: 626-744-5607 [email protected]

Sherman Boone East Stanislaus RCD Ph: 209-491-9320 x121 [email protected]

William Boyd Manure Management Team Leader NRCS Ph: 336-370-3334 [email protected]

Steve Boyd Assistant General Manager of Customer Relations and Government Affairs Turlock Water & Power Ph: 209-883-8364 [email protected]

Gary Bullard Environmental Manager California Dairy Campaign Ph: 916-381-1502 [email protected]

Ed Burton State Conservationist USDA NRCS Ph: 530-792-5600

J.P. Cativiela Program Coordinator CARES Ph: 916-441-3318 [email protected]

Chuck Clendenin Business & Cooperative Program Director USDA Rural Development Ph: 530-792-5825 [email protected]


A-16

Ken Coulter Senior Engineering Geologist State Water Resource Control Board Ph: 916-341-5496 [email protected]

DeeDee D’Adamo Senior Policy Advisor Congressman Dennis Cardoza Ph: 209-527-1914 [email protected]

Cyane Dandridge Executive Director Strategic Energy Innovations Ph: 415-507-2184 [email protected]

Kerry Drake Associate Director US EPA, Air Division Ph: 415-947-4157 [email protected]

Allen Dusault Program Director Sustainable Conservation Ph: 415-997-0380 [email protected]

Nancy Folly Public Benefits Analyst Turlock Irrigation District Ph: 209-883-8506 [email protected]

Karen Joy Francone Deputy Agriculture Commissioner/Sealer Fresno County Department of Agriculture Ph: 559-456-7375 [email protected]

Ed Galvan Dairy Specialist Office of Congressman Devin Nunes Ph: [email protected]

Charlene Herbst Chief, Confined Animal Facility Regulatory Unit Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Ph: 916-464-4724 [email protected]

Brad Hicks Engineer USDA-NRCS Ph: 209-491-9320 [email protected]

Don Hodge Coordinator-Agriculture United States EPA Ph: 415-744-2427 [email protected]

Jane Hopkins Ag Engineer USDA NRCS Ph: 209-491-9320 [email protected]

Kristen Hughes Project Manager Sustainable Conservation Ph: 415-977-0380 [email protected]

Melissa Hunter Public Affairs Associate II Kings River Conservation District Ph: 559-237-5567 [email protected]


A-17

Joseph Hurley Land Use Coordinator Local Government Commission Ph: 916-448-1198 x330 [email protected]

Bryan Jenkins Executive Director California Biomass Collaborative Ph: 530-752-1422 [email protected]

Dan Johnson State Water Management Engineer USDA, NRCS Ph: 530-792-5625 [email protected]

Ray Kablanow_ Geological Technics Ph: 209-522-4119 [email protected]

Stephanie Kato Staff Air Pollution Specialist California Air Resources Board Ph: 916-324-1840 [email protected]

Deidre F. Kelsey Supervisor Merced County Board of Supervisors Ph: 209-385-7366 [email protected]

Charles Krauter Professor of Soils and Water Science CSU Fresno Plant Science Department Ph: 559-278-2861 [email protected]

Ken Krich Assistant Director California Institute for Energy and Environment Ph: 510-287-3307 [email protected]

Dave Krietemeyer Area Engineer USDA-NRCS Ph: 559-252-2191 x114 [email protected]

Keith Larson Water Resources Analyst Turlock Irrigation District Ph: 209-883-8386 [email protected]

Cheryl Lehn Ag & Water Specialist Office of Congressman Jim Costa Ph: 559-495-1620 [email protected]

Anthony Leonard Project Manager Local Government Commission Ph: 916-448-1198 x315 [email protected]

Ronald Lew Waste Management Specialist California Integrated Waste Management Board Ph: 916-341-6592 [email protected]

James Liebman Agricultural Biologist U.S. EPA, Region 9 Ph: 415-947-4241 [email protected]


A-18

David Lighthall Research Director Relational Culture institute Ph: 559-285-7113 [email protected]

Polly Lowry Senior Engineering Geologist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Central Board Ph: 916-464-4601 [email protected]

Ruth MacDougall Sacramento Municipal Utility District Ph: 916-732-6625 [email protected]

Michael Marsh Chief Executive Officer Western United Dairymen Ph: 800-523-4868 [email protected]

Paul Martin Director of Environmental Services Western United Dairymen Ph: 707-763-8874 [email protected]

Michael A. McElhiney District Conservationist Stanislaus County Ph: 209-491-9320 x102 [email protected]

John Menke State Water Resources Control Board Ph: 916-341-5587 [email protected]

Frank Mitoehner Director, Agricultural Air Quality Center University of California, Davis Ph: 530-752-3936 [email protected]

Robert Monley General Manager Farm Project Coordination Ph: 800-899-8212 [email protected]

Jerry O’Banion Supervisor County of Merced Ph: 209-385-7366 [email protected]

Jeff Palsgaard Director of Environmental Health County of Merced Ph: 209-381-1087 [email protected]

John Pedrozo Supervisor Merced County Board of Supervisors Ph: 209-385-7366 [email protected]

Joe Ramos Field Representative Western United Dairymen Ph: 209-527-6456 [email protected]

Robert Rolan Agricultural Commissioner Madera County Ph: 559-675-7876 [email protected]


A-19

Lucinda Roth Air Quality Specialist San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Ph: 559-230-5832 [email protected]

Don Rowley Milk & Diary Inspector Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources Ph: 209-525-6700 [email protected]

George Simons Principal Research Consultant ITRON Ph: 530-756-4168 x2 [email protected]

Paul Sousa Field Representative Western United Dairymen Ph: 209-527-6453 [email protected]

Michael Steele Senior Account Manager, Generation Specialist PG&E Ph: 209 942-1717 [email protected]

Steven Storelli Waste Management Specialist California Integrated Waste Management Board Ph: 916-341-6584 [email protected]

Larry Strong Business & Cooperative Specialist USDA Rural Development Ph: 530-792-5825 [email protected]

Matthew D. Summers, PHD, PE Resource Engineer CDFA Ph: 530-383-8260 [email protected]

Huawei Sun Post-Doctoral Associate UC Davis Ph: 530-752-1201 [email protected]

Jon Thornton Student Assistant CIT Ph: 559-441-7412 [email protected]

John Ungvarsky Water Division U.S. EPA, Region 9 Ph: 415-972-3963 [email protected]

Dave Warner Director of Permit Services San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Ph: 559-230-5900 [email protected]

Douglas W. Williams Consulting Engineer Valley Air Solutions Ph: 530-669-3549 [email protected]

Ruihong Zhang Professor University of California, Davis Ph: [email protected]

developing projects and partners to comprehensively treat ...mr. simons started his presentation by...

Documents